Featured Biblical Atonement (Part 4....but who's counting)

Martin, you are using the English to define the English.

The Greek is not so conformed.

"huper" in the Greek is restricted (again, I can be corrected for my mind may fail me again) to a placement, such as an endowment (English - I paid for His tuition) as one over or not over someone else (English - the servant is not over the master) and perhaps used as one who has the interest of another at heart (English - I took this road for the comfort of my friend).

Again, as you know I readily submit to those of you so much more acute in the languages then me. So, if I have this wrong, I will not be in contest over the matter.

Hope you are well!

 

μεταλλάσσω means 'to exchange' or 'change.' I think it occurs only twice in the NT (Romans 1:25-26). καταλλάσσω means 'to reconcile.' What it does not mean is to 'atone.' Atonement brings about reconciliation. And BTW, according to Vine, the idea that 'atonement' means 'at-one-ment' is entirely fanciful.

Also, if I pay for someone's tuition, I pay it, he doesn't. I pay it instead of him.

 

Glad to hear it. Do you want me to quote a whole load of authorities in support?

 

Is only used twice. Romans 1:25-26.

 

They acted out the predetermined plan and purposes of the father!

 

Jesus died in the place of and paid for the sins of His own elect

 

Thank you for joining in the conversation! The more that folks contribute, the better the Scriptures will be placed as the priority over human conjuring. That is my hope, anyway. Now on to your thinking.

One of the "sticky places" (imo) is that PSA prescribes that forgiveness of sins is tied to the wrath of God. Now this is partly correct in that the blood was shed on the cross, in the court rooms, in the garden, on the road,... but not until it was sprinkled in the heavenly temple was it effective. So, there can be no accounting for that wrath from God the PSA desires for until the sprinkling, the sacrifice was incomplete and unsatisfactory.

Also, we find that the Christ prior to the cross forgave sin. For example in Luke 5.

So, if I am making proper understanding of your question, it is not without blood shed that sins are forgiven, but twho shed the blood. The blood had to be shed by the Christ. This is presented in greater detail in Hebrews 9 then what I write here, and I posted some passages from that chapter in an above post, that might give you a better anchor to follow my thinking.

You also aligned "debt" as an issue. We (meaning everyone on the threads) have yet to present a Scripture that aligns debt with sin. What we find is that the Law decree violations were held against us, and as Colossians 2 states such were nailed by God to the cross.

This is substitute thinking, and again that is not really found Scripturally aligned as PSA would present it as being.

Consider this. A crime has been committed. The parties all show up at court and the offending party brings a sacrifice that will reconcile the breach. The offended is no longer offended for they are pleased and satisfied with the sacrifice.

Here is were we must be very careful to not overstate or understate the Scripture presentation.

Christ came into this world to be the sacrifice in which human hands (the offensive party) sacrificed. (Peter's statement in Acts 2).

However, this action was already known and talked about by the trinity and the prophets.

Christ, both as the high priest and the perfect sacrifice, enters the heavenly temple and there spreads His own blood in that place not made with hands. (Hebrews 9).

There is no demand for "justice.' For God is both the just and justifier of all in whom He justifies.

Now the "press" have been watching, but they only can accuse, mock, and distort and demand some debt existed and justice had to have punishment.

Therefore God sent out folks to tell of the reconciliation and authored a press release for public understanding.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.

10And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. 11In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Colossians 2)
​

God did it all with no wrath poured out upon the Son. For such wrath is being stored up for the rebellious ungodly (Rev. 16).

Hope this helps answer your question, and please make more inquiry and search the Scriptures for the truth!

 

Thanks, so...you are arguing that (in a sense) Scripture which states that God "forgives" is nonsense given PST. Not that you are putting it that way. Am I correct? You seem to be explaining that Aquinas and the Reformers made sense of "forgiveness" as long as it was the "person" being punished and not the "crime"? Here I thought "forgiveness" involved not being punished for a crime but rather, well....FORGIVEN! Pardoned....to put it in a legal context. I sometimes have to punish my children for something they have done, but, unless I am the offended party, I don't have to "forgive" them. My son might have harmed his sister for instance. I don't "forgive" my Son, only his sister can. The offended party forgives the trespasser I would think.
One "forgives" only if punishment is not meted out for the crime. Otherwise, God and us, well, we're "all square" because of Jesus being punished for us. But it's not that we were "forgiven" of anything, just "all square" so to speak. It seems to me that that is kinda' what you are arguing (in my words of course) in the PST view.

 

It helps.....I have been reading a lot of yours and John's posts (certainly not all of them!) And it has gotten me thinking.
I know I'm not the only one. For instance: Vs. 14 you quoted: Did God "CANCEL" the debt (as that verse states) or did the Son "PAY" the debt. Those are not the same arguments or teachings. It seems to me that PSA suggests Christ PAID the debt, not that God "FORGAVE" the debt. This is my way of explaining what I think some of yours and John's arguments are. Correct me if I misunderstand what you are suggesting.

 

No Martin, I want Scripture!

Everything rises and falls upon Scriptures. This is why (long ago) I first questioned PSA thinking. There was little if any true support I could find.

Scripture.

Not some philosophic interpretation, but the truth of Scripture presented in the context of its intent.

For example, when @JonC and I have read posts that say "He was smitten of God and afflicted" it is just not the truth of the Scripture statement. For the post leaves out "For WE esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted" and that first part makes all the difference.

When we have read on some posts how that justice demands retribution for sin, again we look at Scriptures and find that forgiveness does not demand retribution, and satisfaction of the sacrifice removes the demands of justice (the decrees of the law held against us).

So, I want Scripture. The truth of the Scripture.

Don't pile on, but give gently so that we might come to terms with each passage as it is shared.

Perhaps, because this thread is drawing to a close, it may be better to start another that we might explore the fullness of the themes.

I do so look forward to the discussion!

 

I think (If I read correctly) that you have discerned one of the disconnects the PSA has from that which the Scriptures present as truth.

Keep asking, keep seeking. It is the Scriptures that are to be held as the final authority and certainly not me!

 

Right, thanks....so, no, God hasn't "forgiven" the punch in the nose he's just assuaged his wrath against the offender by punching an innocent person instead (but one who volunteered, and they agreed collectively to resolve it that way).

 

MLV, Romans 5:8, ". . . But God is establishing his own love* toward us, that our still being in a sinful state, Christ died on our behalf. . . ."

"behalf
BEHALF, n. behaf. [See Behoof.]

1. Favor; advantage; convenience, profit; support, defense, vindication. The advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner. The patriot suffers in behalf of his country.

2. Part; side; noting substitution, or the act of taking the part of another; as, the agent appeared in behalf of his constituents, and entered a claim."

 

To put it simply: I'm getting from you guys that you might argue that PSA makes nonsense of the word "forgive" and instead substitutes that the punishment of the crime was simply paid by another (an innocent in this case, being Christ). Thus God "forgave" nothing.